Dáil Éireann debate -
Friday, 21 Oct 1932

Vol. 44 No. 3

Private Deputies Business. - 1916-1923 Period: Claims for Compensation.

General MacEoin

I move: That the Dáil is of opinion that a committee should be appointed by the Executive Council to inquire into and report on claims:—

(a) arising out of the billeting of Volunteers and members of flying columns during the period 1916 to 31st December, 1921, and for moneys claimed to be due in respect of food, clothing and transport, including petrol, provided for such Volunteers or members of flying columns by merchants and traders during the said period;

(b) for arms, ammunition, and bicycles voluntarily surrendered during the said period by householders and others;

(c) in respect of the granting of adequate compensation to the parents or partial dependents of officers, section commanders and Volunteers who were killed on active service or who died as a result of illness contracted on active service during the period 1916 to 31st December, 1921;

(d) in respect of the granting of adequate compensation to the parents or partial dependents of officers N.C.O.'s and men of the National Army or Defence Forces who were killed or died as a result of illness arising out of active service in the years 1922 and 1923.

I want to assure the Government that it is not my intention to move any contentious matter, and that, were the present Government on these benches and the people who are on these benches on the others, this motion would be moved at this particular time. Moving it under those circumstances when my late colleagues were occupying the Government Benches it could not be taken that I was moving something for the purpose of moving, but simply because there is an absolute necessity. Now at very many times during the past two years and previous to that some little bit I found very grave hardships, and found people suffering from great hardships because of something that was not done, and that was the giving to them of recognition or giving them compensation for the hardships they underwent in 1920 and 1921 in particular. I do not intend to make a very long speech except to explain each of the sections, and then having done so to give an estimate of the probable cost to the country and to the State. It may be argued that the sum I will mention is much too large, but I want to point out the larger the sum is maintained to be, the more imperative it is that it should be paid because you are having a small number of people bearing this burden which I feel the State should not insist on their bearing. Now in connection with the billeting of Volunteers and members of the Flying Column from the periods mentioned, and for food clothing and transport and everything like that, in the counties where the struggle was hardest you will find that these counties were generally the poorer counties, and in most cases where food and shelter were given it was the poorer people and poorer farmers who really gave it and you found the small farmer who found it very hard to exist being suddenly called upon to give food and shelter to anything from five to thirty of a column for perhaps one, two or three days a week, and that even perhaps six or seven times in a month or two. You will see, therefore, a debt was incurred by that poor farmer that he has never since been able to rise out of and because he gave it voluntarily and because it was not seized there was no means by which any of the previous Acts could give him redress.

Now in that, there are very grave hardships amongst these people and my appeal to the House is that they should be dealt with in the most sympathetic way possible. The same thing applies for arms and ammunition and those things voluntarily surrendered. Section (b). Again for some reason I do not know, under the Indemnity Act it was possible for persons from whom arms were taken to get compensation, that is provided they were suing the individual officer who was taking them or something like that, but if they surrendered them voluntarily they could not either get them back or get paid for them. Again I think that is something that should be really remedied and remedied very quickly.

Now we come to Section (c), and this is, I admit, a most difficult section to deal with adequately, because it is a question of dependency and it is very hard to prove dependency. If the parents have a small farm or a small business or something like that it is immediately argued that those parents were not solely dependent on that dead officer, N.C.O., or man. Now I want to make the case that the fact of the father or mother having a son killed is sufficient. Whether that son is an only son or one of six does not make any difference. The fact that they have a son killed should mean that recognition in a very definite form would be given. I know for a fact that there are people whose relatives were killed in that struggle, that there were mothers who lost sons and who have never received one penny of compensation and I feel that this is a condition of affairs that should not obtain—it is a thing that we should change. The same thing applies under Section (d) to the officers, N.C.O.s, and men of the National Army. Section (c) of course relates to the pre-Truce people and then (d) is post-Truce, and in that case it is also a question of dependency. What I want the House to agree to, and what I want the Executive Council to do is to appoint a Commission or appoint a committee—one more will not make any great difference I suppose—to inquire into the matter and report to the House. I have gone fairly seriously into the probable cost of the whole four sections, and after careful examination by many people I estimate that the total cost to the State would be about half a million, or, to be correct, £540,000—slightly over half a million. That is, for the Twenty-Six Counties. The numbers are not very great, and I argue that it is too much to ask that section of the people to bear that load. The more the Government resists on the question of cost, the more they make that sum, the more imperative, I argue, it is to give that compensation and relief. Now I do not know what the Government's intentions are in the matter, but I do want to assure them that this motion is one that would come at the earliest possible moment that I could bring it, and that is after the last general election, and that no matter who forms the Government this motion is coming, and I can assure you that I can produce reports of speeches I made at various times since 1929, when I came into political life, and that since then I have found those hardships, and since then only could I take the necessary steps in having this particular motion brought before the House. I do not know that I should go any deeper into the matter. I could talk on it for a considerable length of time, but I do not think it is going to help. Most people on the Government Benches, and most people on these benches, know of these facts, know of the situation I have put up, and know that it is true, and therefore it is only a question of whether they are prepared to meet the demand or not. I move the motion and I beg the House to deal generously with it.

Dr. O'Reilly

I beg formally to second Deputy MacEoin's proposal.

Minister for Finance (Mr. MacEntee)

It seems to me that this motion which has been down on the Order Paper since before the last session of the Dáil was concluded would possibly not have appeared there if Deputy MacEoin was aware of the intentions of the Government in regard to a number of matters which have been raised by it, because I am perfectly certain that quite a large number of the cases of hardship which the motion is intended to remedy will be dealt with by legislation which we hope to introduce shortly and which will deal particularly with those cases where compensation is refused because of the effect of Sections 9 and 15 of the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923. It will be remembered that in the case of damage to property under the Act of 1923-26, Section 9 definitely prohibited, I think, the Minister from paying compensation in the case of damage where those involved were proved to the satisfaction of the judge to be members of or helpers of or active sympathisers with any organisation engaged in armed opposition to the late Provisional Government of Ireland or the Government of Saorstát Eireann. And while Section 15, sub-section (9), paragraph (a), sub-paragraph (2), provided that in the case of claims for goods taken away a report could be made only when they were taken without the consent of the owner, and it was the invariable practice, I think, of the late Government to interpret that particular section in such a way that where a person was thought to have been or to be a sympathiser with the Republican side in the civil war compensation was withheld particularly for goods taken away.

In addition to that, apart altogether from the effect of those two provisions in the Compensation Act of 1923, there was the fact that owing to the political feeling which existed at the time a considerable number of persons who might have had sustainable claims under the Damage to Property (Compensation) Act, 1923, and under the Indemnity Act of 1924 refrained from making such claims or from pressing them. We hope at an early date to introduce legislation which will cover all property losses in the period from 21st January, 1919, to 12th May, 1923, in which (1) a claim was not made to the Compensation (Ireland) Commission, (2) a claim in respect of goods taken was disallowed by the Compensation (Ireland) Commission, (3) a claim was not made under the 1923 Act, (4) a claim was made under the 1923 Act but was dismissed by the court on political grounds, and (5) a claim was not made under the Indemnity Act of 1924. That will give us statutory powers to deal with a large number of claims for damage to property, and for goods taken, which were ruled out under previous Acts, and which, apart altogether from the fact that they might have been statute barred, were not pressed by the persons for political reasons. The fact that this legislation is in contemplation will dispose very largely of the claims under the heads set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Deputy MacEoin's motion. With regard to (c) and (d), a good deal has been done under the previous Wound Pensions Acts of 1923 and 1927, and a good deal more will be done under the Pensions Bill introduced by the Minister for Defence last night.

I am not quite sure, and Deputy MacEoin, in proposing his motion, did not show how far the existing Pension Acts and the new Pensions Bill failed to provide for the claims which would arise under paragraphs (c) and (d). I think that what was really in Deputy MacEoin's mind is fully covered by the existing legislation and by the proposed legislation. I take it that where he speaks of granting adequate compensation to the parents or partial dependents of officers, he means such compensation as would recoup them for their loss in cases in which they were dependent on the Volunteers or the officers and men of the National Army who may have been killed. I do not think that he put forward the proposition—I would be surprised if he put it forward—that, irrespective of whether the people to be compensated were dependent on the deceased or not, they should be paid for the death of their son.

Bearing in mind always that the I.R.A. was a purely volunteer organisation, and that the sacrifices which those who enrolled in it made, whether of time, of property, or of life, were purely voluntary ones, and that when they enrolled in that Army, there never was any suggestion and they never had in mind or had any thought that they would receive compensation for the services which they offered or for the risks which they ran purely as a patriotic duty, I think that the utmost the State could be asked in this case, and, in the case of those who enrolled later as regular soldiers in the Army of the Saorstát, would be that their dependents should not be left entirely unprovided for. And I think that adequate provision in that regard has been made, at least, such provision as the State, taking into consideration its financial position, could fairly make, having regard to its duty to the general body of the citizens.

With regard to paragraph (a) of the motion, in which he asks that a Committee should inquire into and report on claims arising out of the billeting of Volunteers or members of Flying Columns during the period 1916 to 31st December, 1921, and for moneys claimed to be due in respect of food, clothing and transport, including petrol, provided for such Volunteers or members of Flying Columns by merchants and traders during the said period, the first observation I have to make is that the Deputy has not been too precise in delimiting the time in respect of which claims may be made. As it stands, it might be the beginning of 1916, it might be the 1st January, 1916, or it might be the end of 1916— 31st December, 1916—or it might be some other date in between. But assuming that it is the period of Easter Week——

General MacEoin

Assume that it is an important date in that year.

Mr. MacEntee

If it is that, I would like to point out that he is going back very much further than was ever contemplated before. Hitherto, in all legislation, and for very sound and historic reasons, the 21st January, 1919, has been taken as the date from which any liability in respect of the conflict between Great Britain and this country might be said to run. I cannot see any very good reason for going outside that date. As a matter of fact, I think that, after the Insurrection of 1916 there was comparatively little martial activity throughout the country until the establishment of the First Dáil. There were one or two incidents which were very significant and, no doubt, by reason of the fact that they did blaze the trail, might be regarded as important. But I do not think that, bearing in mind all the circumstances of the period, we would be justified in considering any event anterior to the 21st January, 1919, and, in that connection, it has got to be remembered that private generosity and private patriotism did provide in a considerable measure for the alleviation of hardships arising out of the 1916 Insurrection. We had the National Dependents' Fund, which disbursed large sums of money. We had during that period also many voluntary efforts made to raise money and, in addition to that, we had the general economic circumstances of the country. We all know that between 1916 and 1919 we were going through a boom period, when money was very much easier to get, and I believe that, consequently, sacrifices were very much less than they would appear to be if they were measured in terms of the monetary values of to-day.

I do not see how we could possibly, at this period, assess the real value of claims which might arise out of the period Easter Week 1916 to the 20th January 1919, even if I felt that there was—and I do not feel that there is— any obligation upon the State to deal with these claims. With regard to the period from the 21st January 1919 to the 11th July 1919, I think the Indemnity Act of 1924—except in the case of those individuals who for political reasons felt themselves precluded from going before the Committee set up under that Act—dealt with this class of claim, and I am advised that in every case in which compensation was asked for arms and ammunition, vehicles, and means of transport surrendered or given to the I.R.A. in the period 1919 to 1921, the Committee set up recommended that compensation should be made in every case in which a claim for compensation was properly sustained before the Committee. I am quite willing to admit that there was a large number of claims which, for political reasons, never came before that Committee. In the legislation we hope to introduce at an early stage, we are going to give the people who refused to press their claims for this reason an opportunity of submitting them to another tribunal.

In connection with what I have just said regarding claims for arms and ammunition put before the Indemnity Committee I would like to say that over £80,000 was paid in respect of such claims, so that the number and the ambit of them was very considerable. Certainly, so far as arms, ammunition and bicycles are concerned, I should say that sum covered, at any rate, every really sustainable claim that could be made to the Committee. With that feeling in my mind, and with every sympathy for the position that those who served as Volunteers during that period may find themselves in now, I cannot leave out of consideration—and the House cannot—the fact that those services, and in many cases the equipment surrendered were given purely voluntarily, and because the people felt it incumbent upon them as patriots to act as they did.

I do not see how we can depart from the voluntary principle in this matter. Thirteen years after the event, when there is possibly no machinery for judging the circumstances under which the goods or arms might have been given to Volunteer officers or to Volunteers as individuals I do not see how, except as a result of a very strict judicial investigation—and even then, I must confess I cannot see any process which would carry conviction—we could determine whether these arms were voluntarily surrendered, or whether they were taken because those who held them were thought to be hostile to the objects of the Republican Army at that time. In any event, if there is any remnant of just claims still remaining unconsidered they will fall to be dealt with by the tribunals which will be set up under the legislation we hope to introduce in the House at an early date.

I think only one problem remains to be considered, and that is the problem of billeting. What I have stated in regard to the voluntary nature of services rendered must, to some extent, apply to billeting. At any rate there is one thing in regard to that problem, that during 1924, when claims under this head might have been more reasonably considered, and more accurately investigated, and when a good deal of evidence in relation to them might be available which is not available now, the Dáil, in setting up the Committee under the Indemnity Act, directed that "in assessing compensation the Committee should not take into consideration any loss or damage arising from the billeting or quartering of troops. What the Dáil could not find it possible to do in 1924, when the machinery which was investigating claims of this sort might have operated with much greater efficiency than it could to-day, eight years later, when financial circumstances and the general economic conditions of the State were better than they are to-day, I do not see how any Government could now accept responsibility for claims regarding billeting. I move the adjournment.

Debate adjourned.

The Dáil adjourned at 2 p.m. until Wednesday, October 26th, at 3 p.m.